Ohio Legislature passed Concealed Carry Reform

Status
Not open for further replies.

Barbara

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
3,230
Location
Michigan
http://www.ohioccw.org

The Ohio Senate accepted the Conference Committee Report by a vote of 25-8.

The Ohio House accepted the Conference Committee Report by a vote of 69-27

The Bill now goes to the Governor's desk.


Woohoo! Good for you folks. It's not a perfect bill, but it's a start.
 
Taft will most likely veto this bill according to the Columbus Dispatch, so it's not a done deal yet.
 
I heard it was veto-proof.

Biggest question, does this joint version of the bill still ban car carry?

Wisconsin could use a push to help us override our govenor.
 
Too early to celebrate just yet. The original bill passed with "veto proof" numbers, but my personal opinion is that we may be better off with a veto. Taft has said that he would sign the senate version of the bill, while reasonable law-abiding citizens have pushed for the house version. I still haven't seen the final draft that is headed to the Gov's desk. Unfortunately, the senate version STILL prohibits concealed carry in a car, and ALL carry in a car with passengers under the age of 18. Personally, one of the most important reasons I would carry would be to protect and defend my two children (both under the age of 3). The senate version also requires entirely too much weapon handling...unholstering and reconcealing every time you get in or out of a car. And of course, Taft's newest "move the cheese" tactic to justify vetoing the bill is the public records request. Taft wants to create a public records database of CCW permit holders...you know, kinda like the public record database of pedophiles and sexual predators? A public records database of CCW holders makes a target out of law abiding citizens who "have something worth stealing" in their homes as well as allowing predators to stalk and target people they KNOW won't be carrying.

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'm just a little disappointed and have a hard time finding the "it's better than nothing" attitude.
 
Based on what I've heard the bill allows carry in a car even with children present. It has to be openly carried, in a holster, on your person. The sticking point right now is how much access the public would have to permit holder information. Taft wants the media to have more access than is currently allowed and that is his basis for a veto. The bill did pass by a veto-proof majority but the bigger question is will they actually over-ride the veto. That remains to be seen. Of course Taft hasn't vetoed yet and rumor is he is taking a "poll" through his office to see where people stand on this issue.

Gerard
 
Open carry in a car? So much for fanny packs.

Having a bill pass by a "veto-proof majority" and actually having that same legislature over-ride the veto are two different things, especially when the leadership and the Guv are in the same party. Happened here in Arizona on a state firearms law preemption bill the day after Columbine.

Rick
 
Sounds like Taft is really getting ground down by the legislature... :D

He's the consumate "have it both ways" politician, saying he'd support CCW, but only if, if, if, if, if... Our liberal Democrat govenor who makes no secret of his anti-gun position is almost refreshing in comparison.

Your gov looks worse and worse each time he does this. Each new "if" he sets up, gets knocked down by the legislature and the OFCC, he comes up with a new one. What did mrtgbnkr call it?

Oh yeah, "moving the cheese".

He must really be an idiot if he thinks this fence-sitting strategy gets him anywhere. And now the police groups support it, and the Ohio Highway Patrol is even moved to "a neutral stance".

The anti's will hate anyone who is for shall-issue CCW, no matter how many conditions they place on it. Plus as a "Republican" he probably won't get the anti vote no matter what anyway. He has nothing to gain by doing this.

Pro carry and pro RKBA forces have a long memory, and frankly even if he does sign, I sincerely doubt that pro-gun people will vote for him because of all his prior obstruction. He could have passed this long ago, and the cops and the anti's would have forgotten all about it as the furor died, and all the "blood in the streets" failed to materialize, like it has failed to appear with boring regularity in every other state with CCW.
 
Last edited:
It wont take effect till 90 days after he vetoes it and the legislature overrides the veto.

Can we have a reality check here? What business is it of the cops if they pull me over whether or not I have something? You know what happens when you tell the police that you have a firearm in the car? They treat the stop the same way they treat a FELONY stop. So you run a red light, and because you choose to exercise your constitutional rights, you are out of the car, hands on your head, face down in the slush, while everyone who drives by sees you like that and Officer Not-So-Damn-Friendly has his foot on your neck, pistol pointed at your head.

Yeah, sounds like a heck of a plan to me. :rolleyes:

And the whole "in a locked box or carried openly when in a car" kind of defeats the point of having concealed carry, doesnt it? Being locked up guarantees that not only can you NOT defend yourself against a carjacker, but now he's got your firearm, too. Thats just what I want. Some a$$hat running around with my pistol, doing god knows what, robbing, raping, etc. When the cops catch him, you think that gun will ever find its way back to you? Hell no, its a 'crime gun' now. Maybe you can get a picture of the manhole cover that your gun becomes part of.

I guess its better than nothing, but we'll have to start trying to get those restrictions eased ASAP.
 
I believe the part about having to carry openly in your car is incorrect. The article says the gun must be holstered but does not specify that it must also be in the open.
 
In the car it must be holstered on the person, in a locked glove or other box, and it does not matter weather or not a minor is in the car.


I will tell you what this Sen. Fingerhut (something else was almost spelled out) is quite an amazing character. He said that people in his neighbor hood do not need guns- it is a safe neighborhood. And the story about his old receptionest or whoever.....what ever:rolleyes: This guy shoveles one steaming pile after another. I am sure though that a lot of people see things he way.:banghead:
 
I have gotten to the point of being 'dizzy-sick' from all the spin by Guv. Booby Daft.

As to Guv. Booby looking worse each time.....well he is already a lieing 2-faced lieing 4-flushing lieing weasel lieing rat-fink liar.

I will have to look it up, but when Guv. Booby's grandfather or great-grandfather (don't know which) was President of the US [yes, THAT Taft], pulled some sort of shenaningans and cost the Repubs the White House and a bunch of Congressional seats...

Seems like the Tafts have always been the R.I.N.O. poster children. From what I see, retiring GA Senator (Demo) Zell Miller is more of a Republican than ANYONE in the Taft Family.

p.s. I am not holding my breath waiting for Boobie to sign this bill. Last time, I found out I make a really wierd-looking Smurf. :p

And just as a side note, Phoenix, Sen Fingerhut is about as usefull as the junk you could buy from the mail-order company of the same name....
 
I moved to Kentucky a couple of years ago from the PRK. I would have never dreamed that Ohio was as bad or worse than the PRK. I hope RKBA passes. If not, then Taft needs to go. May as well have a real Democrat as opposed to a stinking RINO.
 
It may not need to be openly carried. At the time I thought that was the case. As the day goes on and more information comes out this bill gets better and better in my mind.


Gerard
 
I had another thought. My city prohibits having a loaded firearm outside of your home, what happens when CCW is legal? Does it override the city ordinance or does the city ordinance just become more unconsitutional?
 
I just got the following via email:


Gongwer News Service www.gongwer-oh.com
REPORT NO. 236 VOLUME 72 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2003

CONCEALED-CARRY BILL, OTHER SIGNIFICANT MEASURES PASSED AS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
ADJOURNS FOR YEAR

Concealed Handguns: Following several delays, a conference committee
late Wednesday night reported the concealed-carry bill with a handful of
amendments that represented attempts to breach differences between the
legislature and Governor Taft.

The conference report cleared the Senate on a bipartisan 25-8 vote and
passed the House by a 69-27 margin. The conference committee
recommended the report 5-1 with Rep. Lance Mason (D-Shaker Heights) dissenting.

Working from the Senate version of the bill, conferees adopted
amendments that let permit holders carry loaded guns in vehicles if the gun is in a holster, in the permit holder's plain sight or locked compartment or case.

The report further says permit holders may not remove or attempt to
remove loaded handguns from the holster or lockbox at the time he or she is operating a motor vehicle.

The conference report additionally declares that non-permit holders in
a vehicle with a loaded handgun must follow law enforcement officer
directions if stopped for law enforcement purposes.

Conferees also agreed to language that allows for the issuance of
90-day permits for people who have reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack.
People applying for such permits must sign an affidavit declaring they
have reasonable cause to fear an attack.

Members also included provisions that allow journalists to determine if
a permit has been issued to any individual. Reporters seeking such
information would have to declare their name and title, employer information and state
that the disclosure of the information is in the public interest. The
language requires journalists to separately request the permit status
of
each person in question.



Chairman Jim Aslanides (R-Coshocton) further amended the bill to allow
increases in temporary permit fees to cover actual permitting costs,
not to
exceed $30.



Senator Marc Dann (D-Liberty Twp.) questioned provisions regarding
journalists' ability to review permit records. He said the panel should
have
granted reporters access to county-wide permit databases.



On the Senate floor, Senator Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) encouraged
support for the measure that has been under review for several years.
He
said the proposal is a safe and responsible measure that sufficient
support
in each chamber.



Senator Eric Fingerhut (D-Cleveland) called action on the conference
report
"a really bad idea," warning members that they will come to regret
taking
the action. He said increasing the number of guns carried in public
places
would lead to more accidents.



A similar debate unfolded in the House, where Rep. Michael DeBose
(D-Cleveland) questioned the general direction of the bill as well as
the
limits on journalistic review of permit records. "The press is severely
limited in obtaining information on this conference report," he said.
The
lawmaker added later, "We're sending the wrong message, especially to
young
people in the inner city, on how to handle matters."



Mr. Aslanides said the measure properly balances the rights of citizens
to
protect themselves with safety precautions such as the provisions
requiring
training. "It works in 44 other states," he said. We have not heard
compelling testimony that it will not work in Ohio."



Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) said the changes were agreed to
by
the Senate, but he laughed heartily when asked if the governor was on
board.
"I believe we've probably wrung the rag dry," he said of attempts to
appease
Mr. Taft's concerns.



Asked about a the need and potential for a veto override on the bill,
which
Senate President Doug White (R-Manchester) indicated earlier in the day
would be difficult to accomplish in his chamber, Mr. Householder said
he
probably had the votes in the House. Noting the override was a "tool"
for
the Legislature that was simply part of the process, he shrugged off
suggestions that it was a big issue: "We act like it's this big taboo."



Hours before the conference committee convened, legislative leaders
changed
the composition of the panel. Senator White appointed Senator Austria
to
take his seat on the committee; Speaker Householder replaced Rep. Bob
Latta
(R-Bowling Green) with Rep. Jimmy Stewart (R-Athens).



Copyright Gongwer News Service (614-221-1992)
 
Working from the Senate version of the bill, conferees adopted
amendments that let permit holders carry loaded guns in vehicles if the gun is in a holster, in the permit holder's plain sight or locked compartment or case.

The report further says permit holders may not remove or attempt to
remove loaded handguns from the holster or lockbox at the time he or she is operating a motor vehicle.

That's asinine.:rolleyes: Why does it have to be in plain site of the permit holder? Do they think that the permit holder will somehow forget that s/he is carrying a gun so they need to be able to see it?
 
So if I'm reading this right, you can be driving around with you gun in its holster, you just need to uncover it and make it visable while you are driving?

That is dumb. How about you just carry it like normal and if you get pulled over for whatever reason you untuck your shirt?

I guess it makes pocket or fanny pack carry in a car illegal though.

Man that is some stupid crap.

Better than not carrying at all though.
 
Working from the Senate version of the bill, conferees adopted
amendments that let permit holders carry loaded guns in vehicles if the gun is in a holster, in the permit holder's plain sight or locked compartment or case.

:confused:

So if I have my USP on my hip where it normally resides, I'm breaking the law because I can't see it even if it is uncovered?

Better than nothing I suppose, much better than it could have been.

Greg
 
I read that sentence as saying that the gun must be holstered, or be in the plain view of the permit holder, or in a locked compartment or case. In other words, not just tucked under the seat.

Am I reading that incorrectly?
 
Monkeyleg,

I interpret that clause the same way. That would seem to me to be logical, but then again, we are talking about a product of politicians.

So, again, has anyone heard anything regarding reciprocity? Last I heard supporters wanted at least recognition of permit holders of contiguous states, if not full reciprocity, but I haven't yet heard what, if anything, made it into the final compromise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top